The author's views are entirely his or her own (excluding the unlikely event of hypnosis) and may not always reflect the views of Moz.

If you hang out online much (and if you're reading this, chances are you do), you've no doubt noticed the seeming onslaught of fevered, near-rabid support for Republican presidential candidate, Ron Paul. The Paul campaign seems to get a ton of mention online. In fact, even the mainstream media is finally acknowledging--albeit in a very suspicious manner--the apparent surge of grassroots support for "Dr. No," as he's sometimes called. ABC News, among others, did a high-profile story about the "Ron Paul Effect" and looked into whether or not the apparent surge in online support for this dark horse candidate could lead to a reciprocal increase in offline support and coverage.

I decided to look at some numbers to get an idea of how real this swell of Ron Paul support is, both online and off. Is Ron Paul gaining a huge show of support from all across the spectrum, or does he just have a small but loyal (and web savvy) following that's beaten all of the other candidates to the concept of viral politics?

Stories about Ron Paul in the Reddit Hot 50 at the time of this writing: 7
Stories about Ron Paul in the Digg Top 50 at the time of this writing: 0*

*(Apparently some of the users at Reddit claim that Digg is automatically burying anything having to do with Ron Paul.)

If you browse Reddit with any frequency, you know that you can't close your eyes and point without hitting a post extolling the virtues and statistical triumphs (fund raising accomplishments, online debate poll victories) of Ron Paul. As online marketers, we all know the value, in attention and links, of getting a story on the front page of Digg or Reddit. In the realm of politics though, how is this attention carrying over across the web?

Looking at Google Trends data, Paul has definitely seen a significant increase in search volume, with apparent spikes around Republican debates (starting with the May 4th debate in California). Rudy Giuliani, one of the Republican front-runners, barely has a pulse online according to this chart, while Democratic leaders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have remained rather close all year.

This would seem to indicate that there's been broad interest in Paul, steadily increasing after a huge spike to prominence following the May debate. But before we jump to any conclusions, let's look at some other indicators.

Alexa data seems to mirror Google almost identically: a steady climb, eventually beating the Democratic candidates, beginning in May.

A few spikes aside, Technorati indicates that, since May, Ron Paul has, on average, been receiving slightly less blog coverage than Obama and quite a bit less than Clinton (note the Y-axis; these graphs are not in the same scale).

And lastly, according to Compete.com, which uses a variety of sources to derive its usage data, Paul has, you guessed it, been steadily gaining since May, but hasn't caught Clinton or Obama.

So, what does this all mean? Well, it's hard to say. The numbers above could indicate several things:

Ron Paul's performance in debates and other media coverage has garnered increasing interest from the public, now approaching the levels of DNC front-runners Clinton and Obama.

Ron Paul's loyal support base (Paulites) have strategically managed to create a successful viral campaign for their candidate that has made him an online darling and grabbed him a lot of attention.

Fox News and others are right that Paulites haven't gone viral, they're just spamming the crap out of every forum, poll, comment thread, and social media portal they can find.

Any way you slice it, Paul, who himself seems both impressed and amazed by his tremendous online presence, is on of the first candidates in American politics--whether by intention or fortune--to effectively gain political momentum almost solely through online efforts. As the ABC article notes, for a candidate that has been called "fringe" more times than one could count, the mainstream media is now being forced to cover him, even if it's just to marvel at his online support-base and phenomenal showing in non-scientific polls. Whether out of suspicion, contempt (I'm looking at you, Sean Hannity), or amazement, the mainstream media has found an interesting story in the Ron Paul campaign, and it's all the result of his online army.

The stories of record fund raising accomplishments, growing support, domination in post-debate polling, and even improving odds among Las Vegas bookmakers seem to indicate that the Ron Paul e-juggernaut may be on the verge of becoming a real boy. But there's a disconnect. In actual, in-person, scientific polling, Ron Paul barely registers. In Gallup polls taken since March of 2007, Ron Paul has only received 1-3% from likely voters (3% in April, after the California debate attention spike, but back down to 2% by October), putting him near the back of the GOP pack. In the recent Ames Straw Poll in Iowa, Congressman Paul took 9.1% of the vote, placing him 7th; far from the lead (Mitt Romney), but ahead of better funded and less-fringe (depending on your views) candidates such as Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo.

Is Ron Paul having difficulty reaching a mainstream, less web-savvy audience? Perhaps. Polling in early primary states shows Paul as barely a blip on voters' radar...not a death sentence, but certainly a difficult hurdle (witness the meltdown of the Howard Dean campaign after a few early primary losses, then remember that Paul is a Republican, where polls tend to be far more indicative of actual results). Paul's campaign, now flush with online fund raising capital, finally prepared and launched television ads last week...in New Hampshire, the fifth state in the Republican primary schedule. This unfortunately means that Dr. Paul's efforts at a serious offline, mainstream media campaign are targeting a possible primary showing almost three weeks (and four well-publicized primaries) after the Iowa caucus, and only two weeks before Super Tuesday. These are some ambitious deadlines, to say the least.

While Ron Paul's stellar rise to internet stardom and his amazing fund raising numbers from online efforts, thanks in large part to the seemingly relentless efforts of the Paulites, will likely join the 2004 Dean campaign as the playbook for online campaigning, it may be too late to transition that momentum into real poll numbers. Unfortunately, if Ron Paul doesn't do well in primaries, many pundits will likely say it's proof that non-scientific polls were rigged, and the "Ron Paul Revolution" was mostly smoke and mirrors from a small group of fanatical but savvy followers. National marketing campaigns cannot live online alone.

Web-based ad campaigns may represent some of the best ROI for your marketing buck, but for a campaign of the necessary scope and breadth of a presidential bid, mainstream media, particularly television, is a proven and seemingly necessary component. That may change one day, and campaigns like that of Dr. Paul are leading the way, demonstrating that the internet can reach a passionate, motivated portion of the electorate that will speak loudly and give generously. But whether Ron Paul is the candidate that can take that online momentum and transform it into a serious bid for the White House remains to be seen.

NOTE FROM RAND: For anyone who wants it, here's the comparative data from blog & news search sources as well.

As was noted in the comments, we have no way to verify whether this is primarily positive or negative press, but it at least illustrates the quantity of online activity around the subject.

p.s. As with all SEOmoz posts that touch on politics, please limit the comments to the subjects of Internet Marketing and SEO - there's lots of other places on the web to discuss the political implications of Paul and company.

Comments
36

Paul's online supporters have had him spill over into the mainstream to a certain extent, but it's amazing how little non-techy people know about him as yet. We were out driving on Sunday and we saw some rogue Paul signs. Husband says, "What's this Paul guy's deal? He's one of the Republicans, right? Someone told me he's big on the Internet."

Husband is a politically-savvy guy, but since he'd probably spell Reddit Read It, he's hardly been exposed to any of the Ron Paul campaign.

For me, permanent residents don't get to vote, so this is like being twenty years old and going to Vegas :)

Paul definitely needs some offline momentum, but his $4.3 million day online should help him get some of that traction. And the free press covering the online surge won't even cut into that little windfall.

I agree with what several others have said -- he's more of a search interest because most people don't know a whole lot about him. Giuliani, on the other hand, has done an "excellent" job "reminding" people that he was the man on 9/11, if nothing else.

his army of grassroots supporters routinely carry signs that say "google: ron paul" and "who is ron paul?" -- it seems to be paying off, although there's really no way to tell what those marketing slogans generate as far as online searches is concerned.

I think the comments about Paul's precense in the 'offline' voting world is one of the most interesting things about the Paul campaign. I'm sad to agree with Scott that Ron might not have 'time' to saturate the traditional voter base.

What I see though, and I could be wrong, is that Ron Paul *may* pull a group of voters who traditionally do not vote (the young, geeks, etc) to the polls, which to me as nearly as significant as if Ron were to win the republican nomination. Inspiring a group of people who are generally apathetic (myself included in that--haven't voted in 8+ years but will now for Paul, even if he's a write-in candidate) to go vote is no small feat.

The importance of the "Ron Paul" effect is likely relevant in the next 10-20 years, as baby boomers kick the can and more tech-savvy voters are the majority. We're seeing the forefront of how future presidential bids may be run. The interesting part is how "the man" will handle it--if you think, as I do, that traditional media is generally controlled by a couple of sources who spin news the way they see fit, they may be losing sleep in the years to come over the inability to control blogs, forums and other online sources. I also sense they are years behind on the "SEO bandwagon" and sources that can leverage SEO and get their candidates the right exposure may change the way politics and races are presented to the public. Or so I can hope ;)

That's a great idea! Perhaps after the primaries are wrapped I'll go back and look at not only Ron Paul, but the rest of the candidates and see if I can find anything to indicate a strong online presence making an impact in the polls.

I'll be interested to see how effective Ron Paul's marketing campaign is when it comes to elections.

I tend to measure my marketing campaigns by conversion rate, which is usually influenced heavily by relevance of the campaign to the audience.

Yes, loads more people are finding out about and/or hearing Ron Paul's name, but what percentage of people hearing his name are relevant audience members?

Over here in the UK I am well aware that there is a candidate called Ron Paul, however I'm not so sure that me seeing his name online is going to positively effect his campaign. The campaign is far too much noise at the moment in my opinion.

saying all that, even though I know he is a candidate however I dont know what he looks like. So whenever I hear him mentioned I have an image of Rue Paul in my head *shudder*

Too true. I think there is a lot of noise in the Paul campaign currently: a lot of curiosity, but perhaps not so much enduring interest among the general public. Most people I know who don't pay close attention to national politics this early in the cycle may or may not know who Ron Paul is, and of those that do, the majority only know him as, "that guy that wants to get rid of taxes."

The thing that is interesting to me is that he has gained a lot of support without anything more than Internet buzz. Like you mention some of the networks are beginning to cover him a bit but in a decidedly backhanded manner. They imply that he is not really a legitimate candidate. He is portrayed as a fringe oddity that really has no chance at winning. Of course much of the American public eats this up and will continue to only support the candidates that the major media network tells them to support.

Sean Hannity hates the guy and even makes up lies about his fans to discredit any support he gets. Like the Fox Poll he won where Hannity said that it was nothing more than a few Paul Bots text messaging over and over again. In reality you could only vote once from the same phone (some PaulBots actually tested it and where not allowed to vote more than once). Never once did Hannity admit this but instead continued to downplay Paul's support and paint him as a fringe lunatic with a psychotic support base.

But I digress. I think there is more support for Paul than the major media outlets want to admit. He pulled in nearly $4 Million in donations yesterday and his average donor gave around $50 -$100. That means a lot of people donated and those donors were not the corporate lobbyists that give most of the money to the so called real candidates.

I guess this turned into a rant but IMO online support can turn into support with the right marketing mix. If he actually gets some time on TV he may draw more support from the mainstream and actually be covered in a less snarky light. He has shown that viral marketing is important but can only go so far and everyone needs a good mix of marketing efforts to achieve optimal results.

Regarding the R.Paul money-raiser...I think the thing we need to remember though is that these were pledges for the most part, not real $$$. Paul is a real candidate just not as real as is portrayed on the web but perhaps a little more than the polling indicates. A very real concern is if these are mostly very young supporters, will they even turn out for the vote ?

If they really started doing SEO on a major scale it would be interesting to see just how big the Ron Paul effect becomes. I mean he raised 4 million with very little SEO and lots of viral marketing. If he used that money to hire 100 *GOOD* Seo companies to help him totally dominate the online world could he turn that 4 million dollar day into a 10 or 20 million dollar day?

I think the real question we should be asking is "Has Ron Paul done everything he can do online or is there more he can do and if so what else can he do to continue to dominate the online political spectrum?" :)

Outstanding post Scott. In terms of your three bullet analysis of the numbers, I think the answer is (to varying degrees), all of the above.

Ron Paul strikes me as a no-nonsense, straight talker. At least in the early stages of getting to know a candidate, people seem drawn to that. In that respect, his support reminds me of that which Ross Perot initially garnered until almost everyone realized he was a bit of a crackpot. Coincidentally, (or maybe not), they're both Texans. I'm from Austin, so please don't attack me fellow Texans.

Ultimately though, for some reason, we Americans seem to vote for politicians, even if they are unsophisticated redneck cowboys. Since I don't believe in mixing business and politics, I won't mention any (George Bush) names.

I do beleive Ron Paul's support demonstrates the real, emerging power of the "Linkerati", who aren't yet powerful enough to drive a"fringe" presidential candidate to the top, however I firmly beleive that by 2012, that is exactly the kind of power they will wield.

I said "a bit of a crackpot". Personally, I think his selection of James Stockdale as a running mate in itself lends credence to that statement. I also beleive his persistent paranoia and obsession about unfounded covert activities against him provides a bit more. Finally, having lived in Dallas for 11 years with an office just down the road from EDS and many friends that worked for him that have shared some stories about bizarre behavior, I guess I'm a bit biased.

Personally, I think if I erred in my statement, it was in saying that "almost everyone realized"...when in fact, that may not be the case.

Of course, it was just a quick editorial comment that I thought was presented in a light-hearted manner, so I do apologize if I offended you.

On a separate note, I'm glad you reminded me of the Dana Carvey impressions. I've got to watch those skits again. They were hysterical!

Good piece. However, your stats on the candidates don't assume if the articles are positive or negative. Just assuming that half are good or half are bad is misguided. For instance, it could be that the Hillary posts cut 60-80% negative.

Thats crucial given that the existence of the Ron Paul effect wouldn't be proven by how many negative articles he received.

Oh, I don't know if that holds true in politics as much as in normal consumer marketing. Outing, swiftboating, revealed racism, illegal activity, over-excited screaming looped over and over and over...these types of publicity have harmed or destroyed many a political career.

I will say that in early primary polling name recognition is a HUGE factor, which does feed into the 'all press is good press' maxim. It's also the reason many pollsters attribute to the large early poll leads of Clinton and Giuliani.

And, yes, name recognition is huge in politics. There was a guy around here named Charlie Brown. I don't remember how he stood on the issues, I don't remember his opponent. But he took like 97% of the vote.

1. People search for things they don't know and are curious/interested in. Ron Paul's Google Trends data really shows that peopl are interested in learning about him or his candidacy. People don't search for Hillary Clinton because, by and large, most people have made up their minds about her.

2. Ron Paul's online support has not manifest itself in the real world. While "Google Ron Paul" signs dot the landscape, they have yet to turn into real polling numbers. They will never turn into real polling numbers. If and when Ron Paul ever became a meaningful opponent, his "Dr. No" vote on so many important, well-liked government programs and institutions will bury him.

You can already see the headlines... "Ron Paul Voted Against: Schools, Moms, Babies, Soldiers, Health Care... What Does He Support? Legalization of Drugs."

3. Ron Paul is an example of what happens when a large number of people have an instantaneous way to anonymously promote their opinions. What will most likely happen is this...- Paul will not get the nomination.- Paul will believe that his online base and Libertarian support will be worth a 3rd party run.- His showing will be better than, but similar to, Buchanans. He will not win a single state.- He will have a similar impact on Democrats and Republicans alike, unlike 3rd party runs in past that have tended to split 1 party more so than another (like Nader)

In my opinion, the surge in Ron Paul interest began after one specific moment. During one of the first debates, when asked about Middle East policy, Paul began to talk about how America's policy of "interfering" in the Middle East was creating all the Muslim rage towards us. He compared it to a scenario where China had troops all around the US - what would we do. I think this feeds right into what the left wanted to hear. Even a democrat couldnt have said it better. The fact that he is a republican is confusing the liberals and moderates who have sympathy for this viewpoint. Thats why he is such a phenomenon right now. No one knows what to make of him.

Nathania, believe me, I hear exactly what you're saying. And actually, I think Ron Paul would probably be the most difficult GOP candidate to beat at this point as he'd probably pull a lot of the swing vote as well as win back a good number of Republicans who've gone Democrat strictly because of the war.